Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giblink

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. KrakatoaKatie 10:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giblink

Giblink (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Recently speedied as spam, this website seems to be a version of the old Ponzi scheme -- all the references are self-generated or from blogs or other non-notable sites -- I don't want Wikipedia to lend this non-notable enterprise any credence. Accounting4Taste 04:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The version that was speedied as spam was quite a bit more spammy. I was of two minds about nominating this, because the website may actually have generated quite a bit of short-term buzz and I don't know if it's better to expose it for what it is through Wikipedia, or not lend it any credence -- so I'll let the community decide. Accounting4Taste 04:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for failing notability per WP:WEB. I couldn't turn up any sources that were more than press releases (PR only on google, and 10 press releases on google news), and I didn't see any mention of them winning any notable awards. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Despite Accounting4Taste's point, I go along with Bfigura about failing WP:WEB. Pig^man 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that gibLink is a relatively new phenomenon, providing a site description "...in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known..." is rather difficult because the achievements, impact and historical significance at this point is somewhat unclear due to the relative recent appearance of the phenomenon. The community may benefit from a balanced presentation from knowledgeable persons (moreso than I). I think the ball is worth kicking about to see which direction of the field it winds up traveling to. Tosshoo 05:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think I may have touched on this indirectly in the note I left you, but basically, if we can't prove notability during the AfD, this should probably be deleted. It's not a big deal to recreate it once more sources become available. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment No argument with that point. I added a request for notable in the main article, if it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, perhaps a move to WikiNews would be appropriate, I am not familiar with how to do so. Hopefully the request for notable will attract some further edits. There is quite a bit of information on the phenomenon found on Squidoo.com Tosshoo 05:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.